On 11/15/12, Adrian Chadd <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15 November 2012 05:27, Giovanni Trematerra > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I really do think that is a very bad idea. >> When a locking assertion fails you have just to stop your mind and >> think what's wrong, >> no way to postpone on this. > > Not all witness panics are actually fatal. For a developer who is > sufficiently cluey in their area, they are quite likely able to just > stare at the code paths for a while to figure out why the > incorrectness occured.
The problem is that such mechanism can be abused, just like the BLESSING one and that's why this is disabled by default. I believe having a mechanism to use printf for witness is not a good idea. > As I said, I do this primarily so I can sprinkle lots of lock > owned/unowned assertions around my driver(s) and then use that to > catch when things aren't being correct. Having to reboot upon _every_ > lock assertion quickly got old. You can use it as a local patch then. This is not really the usual way to develop locking policies. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
